The main factor holding back the increase to 1024x768 is the fact that so many people have less-than-perfect near vision. Higher resolution shrinks everything, so my parents (for example) consider that a downgrade compared to 800x600. Their computer is capable of 1280x1024, but it becomes unusable (to them) at that resolution.
Your last paragraph consists of three sentence fragments. The first lacks a verb. The second is a dependent clause. The third lacks a subject.
The above is an example of a "not appropriate" situation in which to correct someone's grammar. There is such a thing. Sorry if this upsets your simplistic black-and-white view of discipline/education, but it turns out that letting mistakes go uncorrected sometimes doesn't lead to the downfall of civilisation.
People tend to think of this philosophy as depressing and pessimistic. But existentialism has a follow-up: If there's no point, then we're free to create our own. Your life is about whatever you decide to make it about. That's the ultimate optimism.
I have always hated school too. It bears no resemblance to the real world.... Wouldn't that stuff be run at cost if college really was about learning and not about profit?
There are reasons why dorms and meal plans are as expensive as they are... some good (dorms come with custodial services, building managers who double as surrogate parents and crisis intervention counselors, locationlocationlocation) and some not so good (mismanagement, bad contracts, overpaid loafers, etc). Assuming without seeing any of their books that these schools (especially non-profits?) are just trying to gouge the students, is the kind of mistake I made when I was a student and didn't know any better. Now that I've worked at colleges, I've discovered that it's a bit more complicated than that. In which sense, colleges are exactly like the real world.
[lawyers] make great money, hardly work at all, and all it takes is a willingness to be totally evil.
I guess someone neglected to point that "hardly work at all" part out to the workaholic who provided my mother with the financial and moral support to raise me and my sisters, or to the guy who lives with my sister, niece, and nephew on weekends. And although I have plenty of differences of opinion with Dad, and have developed some rather different values from his, "evil" is one adjective I would never apply to him.
Quick aside: Real Genius is one of my all-time favorite movies. It's a stoopid college movie for smart people, and gets both parts of that formula right.
I don't know if I'm "uniquely bright" but I only missed 3 questions on the SAT, and I have 4-year degrees in both Comp Sci and Illustration, so I'm definitely not "ordinary".
My first time in college was at a liberal arts school, which was good because it gave me the opportunity to study some of everything. I don't regret declaring the Comp Sci major right away, but I wish I'd played the field a little more first. I didn't have a minor because I didn't focus enough on any one other field to meet the requirements (Philosophy was closest), and spent all my extra time doing fun stuff like doing a radio show, taking pictures for the newspaper, and meddling in student government; that part I did right. (It also gave me what little "social network" I now have to draw upon.) When I went back to art school later, I played the field again, taking life drawing, typography, art history, 3D animation, oil painting, digital painting, photography, etc classes.
I'd like to tell you that the job opportunities for someone with both creative and technical interests are unlimited... but not in my experience. The collapse of the "dot com" industry - which was supposed to create jobs for creative techs in every city in America - is probably partly to blame. Employers want specialists. They'll hire a generalist at entry level, because fresh grads don't have any real specialties, but odds are the job will turn you into a specialist, and every advanced position you try to get will want you to be really good at just two or three things. Your best bet there is to look for work with small employers, because they're more likely to give you more varied things to do. I've worked in corporate, academic, and non-profit places, and the size of the outfit has consistently made more difference in my enjoyment than its mission.
If you can't find a job that satisfies you (and you won't) make sure you find time outside of work to do the stuff that the boss won't let you. My current job is mostly technical (because my first job was, and subsequently those are the only jobs I can get) so I try to spend my weekends writing or drawing or designing web sites.
I web browse, email, do a little photoshopping and run a web server on my box. Like to see you try doing that on 1ghz.
Um, I have a 233MHz G3 iMac on which I do all of that, kid. Quite easily. That iMac got me through a Digital Media & Illustration BFA, in which I did CPU-intensive stuff like rendering 3D animations with Cinema 4D, and working on poster-size 300dpi Photoshop files with dozens of layers, and hosting several web sites in the background. Sure, the 3D renders took ages, which is why I bought a G5 just before graduating (i.e. still on a student discount, but with a new job on the way). I can use more power, to be sure. But I don't necessarily need it. If you do, that's just a sign of your weakness. I'd be willing to match my Photoshopping abilities using this gear, with yours using yours, any day of the week.
In fact, I've got a 33MHz Mac Quadra around here, from before I went back to college, with Netscape, Photoshop, and MacHTTP web server, which could do all the same stuff you describe. Not as quickly, and with a little more work, but I could do it.
I'd be offended by the adolescent crack about being "from a different time thats gone past its usefullness", except for the fact that I'm old enough to know that it's wrong, and to know that someday you'll be hearing it yourself, from another generation of snot-nosed twerps... who'll be just as short on perspective.
My current firewall is a Dell 486/33 with 24M of RAM (I inherited for free) running Suse 6.4. It still does the job, quietly chugging away under my desk...
"Chugging"? Pull out that noisy hard drive and put a Coyote Linux floppy in/dev/fdo. The CPU has a fanless heat sink, and there's no 5400rpm top spinning in the case, so after a minute of noisy drive seeks during boot, it's quiet as a mouse and maintenance free. If I had decent air conditioning in my house, I'd even consider snipping the wires to the power supply fan, and it'd be completely noiseless.
I not only have a 486 routing my packets (and blocking the incoming packets I don't want), but also another one running print jobs for me, and another serving up web pages. That last one's running Windows 3.1 as a kind of "look how we used to do this stuff, kids" project, so it's not exactly/.-proof. At least not compared to the floppy-based 386sx Linux server sitting next to it. Kids these days are so spoiled by their built-in floating-point units and other fancy-schmancy 486-type tricks.
I know a couple people who work in commercial radio, and from what they tell me, except at a few of the tiniest stations that Clear Channel, Citadel, etc. haven't bought yet, DJs have no power to choose songs. The music they play is determined by the station's central computer and played from their "current rotation" database, or (at the places without the latest equipment) from playlist-specific CDs supplied by their programming service. Even if the overnight DJ thinks that track #7 on the new CD by Pretentious Nonsequitur (and not the "hit single" of track #1) is the greatest tune since "I Got a Gal in Kalamazoo", he may be literally unable play it.
What I don't understand is why Billboard would count a paid advertisement as a spin for the purposes of producing their charts.
What I don't understand is why anyone (other than a recording artist or a record-publishing executive) even gives a damn about Billboard's charts. Think about it: why should anyone care?
Hopefully this trend will continue, leaving the stations free to play a more interesting variety, if the mass-market crap they're playing now migrates to paid ads.
Far more likely they'd just gravitate to an entirely pay-for-play model. Especially when the people paying the station's bills (the purveyors of the aforementioned mass-market crap) start to complain about the free airtime the station is giving to their competitors.
It seems kind of strange that the law should require any of this.
The reason the laws apply to radio like this is because (at least in principle), the airwaves are a public resource, so the folks given the licence to use them have to use them within limits that aren't imposed on, say, newspaper publishers.
"OK, you can use the 95.7MHz range in this area to run commercial annoucements for your own profit, but you have to also provide a free service to the community, such as playing music, reporting the news, or airing the opinions of loud-mouthed morons." Things have strayed a bit from that, but that's the idea behind it.
I still listen to radio. For the past decade and a half, my tuner has alternated between a nearby NPR/PRI afilliate and our local community radio station. The latter features music selected by volunteer programmers from an eclectic library of folk, blues, jazz, rock, and world beat; no commercials (just brief "day sponsor" announcements read a dozen times over the course of the day, and a semi-annual pledge drive); and a rule against repeating any track that's been played in the last few days. I'm pretty out of touch with what's being pushed on commercial radio these days (I have no idea who this Avril person mentioned in the article is), but I don't miss it one bit.
Yeah, it's kinda silly, but it's not a "PC schools" thing, so climb down off your reactionary horse. Calling early teens "young adults" is good old-fashioned commercial marketingspeak, intended to appeal to kids who think of themselves as too grown-up for "children's books". It's become standard lingo in the book trade and libraries, referring to a category of books that are dominated by fun-but-enriching stories about misfit adolescents learning valuable lessons about life and growing up (e.g. the Harry Potter books).
(Its for OSX, not sure if the grape can handle that or not).
As a rule of thumb, every good-looking Mac can run the current OS X.
That includes every iMac, every iBook, and their contemporary Power* counterparts. The old G3 models run it rather well, considering their CPU speed, and you might want to consider a RAM upgrade. The earlier releases of OS X are supported on the old beige G3's and black PowerBooks, and even unsupported-by-Apple earlier models (the 7xxx, 8xxx, 9xxx series) can run it with a little tweaking of the install process using XPostFacto . I'm running Panther on one of the beige All-In-One G3's (if you've never seen one, imagine an angry Mac Classic after an overdose of gamma radiation), and my only complaint is that the internal floppy drive doesn't work (because Apple decided in '98 that floppies were evil).
Re:...they don't have it already?
on
Iraq Wants .iq TLD
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
This registration for a guy in Richardson TX is legitimate. After all, Iraq did recently "join" the Imperial Republic of Texas.
And it would also open the door for censorship, political manipulation, etc. Do you really want the internet in the same hands as the author's of the PATRIOT Act? Or the Oil-for-Food Fraud? No thank you, sir.
And a private corporation would be better than this... how? It's not as if businessmen are somehow purer than politicians. Would you like the internet in the hand of Diebold or the MPAA or Microsoft? There's plenty of motivation for censorship, political manipulation, etc. that way too, plus the anti-competitive profit motive as well. And since you're not one of the plutocrats that owns the company, they wouldn't even have to pretend to listen to your complaints.
fyi, "ephobophilia" is not a word. you mean ephebophila.
You got the link right, but misspelled the word: it's ephebophilia. Although the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, there is some difference between those attracted to pre-pubescents (pedophiles) and those attracted to adolescents (ephebophiles). For example, most of us have been attracted to teenagers at some point in our lives, which makes an attraction to them during adulthood fairly "normal" (for what that's worth).
"WHO THE H*#&! ARE YOU AND WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO MUCK AROUND WITH THIS TREASURED PIECE OF LITERATURE, YOU AMERICAN HOLLYWOOD HACK?"
I like this guy already.
I started warming to him at that point. He finally had me when he alluded to the fact that he'd written the screenplay for Chicken Run. Based on how well that film turned out (What?! You haven't seen it yet? Rent it now!), my answer to the above question would be that he the h*#&! is an excellent choice to adapt this treasured piece of literature.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a polyglot of only seven languages (COBOL, Pascal, Fortran, C, PostScript, sh, and 8086 assembly), but perhaps you were thinking of this?
One version they're missing is the one I wrote in Lotus 1-2-3 (release 2.x) macro language.
The main factor holding back the increase to 1024x768 is the fact that so many people have less-than-perfect near vision. Higher resolution shrinks everything, so my parents (for example) consider that a downgrade compared to 800x600. Their computer is capable of 1280x1024, but it becomes unusable (to them) at that resolution.
The above is an example of a "not appropriate" situation in which to correct someone's grammar. There is such a thing. Sorry if this upsets your simplistic black-and-white view of discipline/education, but it turns out that letting mistakes go uncorrected sometimes doesn't lead to the downfall of civilisation.
People tend to think of this philosophy as depressing and pessimistic. But existentialism has a follow-up: If there's no point, then we're free to create our own. Your life is about whatever you decide to make it about. That's the ultimate optimism.
There are reasons why dorms and meal plans are as expensive as they are... some good (dorms come with custodial services, building managers who double as surrogate parents and crisis intervention counselors, locationlocationlocation) and some not so good (mismanagement, bad contracts, overpaid loafers, etc). Assuming without seeing any of their books that these schools (especially non-profits?) are just trying to gouge the students, is the kind of mistake I made when I was a student and didn't know any better. Now that I've worked at colleges, I've discovered that it's a bit more complicated than that. In which sense, colleges are exactly like the real world.
I guess someone neglected to point that "hardly work at all" part out to the workaholic who provided my mother with the financial and moral support to raise me and my sisters, or to the guy who lives with my sister, niece, and nephew on weekends. And although I have plenty of differences of opinion with Dad, and have developed some rather different values from his, "evil" is one adjective I would never apply to him.
I don't know if I'm "uniquely bright" but I only missed 3 questions on the SAT, and I have 4-year degrees in both Comp Sci and Illustration, so I'm definitely not "ordinary".
My first time in college was at a liberal arts school, which was good because it gave me the opportunity to study some of everything. I don't regret declaring the Comp Sci major right away, but I wish I'd played the field a little more first. I didn't have a minor because I didn't focus enough on any one other field to meet the requirements (Philosophy was closest), and spent all my extra time doing fun stuff like doing a radio show, taking pictures for the newspaper, and meddling in student government; that part I did right. (It also gave me what little "social network" I now have to draw upon.) When I went back to art school later, I played the field again, taking life drawing, typography, art history, 3D animation, oil painting, digital painting, photography, etc classes.
I'd like to tell you that the job opportunities for someone with both creative and technical interests are unlimited... but not in my experience. The collapse of the "dot com" industry - which was supposed to create jobs for creative techs in every city in America - is probably partly to blame. Employers want specialists. They'll hire a generalist at entry level, because fresh grads don't have any real specialties, but odds are the job will turn you into a specialist, and every advanced position you try to get will want you to be really good at just two or three things. Your best bet there is to look for work with small employers, because they're more likely to give you more varied things to do. I've worked in corporate, academic, and non-profit places, and the size of the outfit has consistently made more difference in my enjoyment than its mission.
If you can't find a job that satisfies you (and you won't) make sure you find time outside of work to do the stuff that the boss won't let you. My current job is mostly technical (because my first job was, and subsequently those are the only jobs I can get) so I try to spend my weekends writing or drawing or designing web sites.
Um, I have a 233MHz G3 iMac on which I do all of that, kid. Quite easily. That iMac got me through a Digital Media & Illustration BFA, in which I did CPU-intensive stuff like rendering 3D animations with Cinema 4D, and working on poster-size 300dpi Photoshop files with dozens of layers, and hosting several web sites in the background. Sure, the 3D renders took ages, which is why I bought a G5 just before graduating (i.e. still on a student discount, but with a new job on the way). I can use more power, to be sure. But I don't necessarily need it. If you do, that's just a sign of your weakness. I'd be willing to match my Photoshopping abilities using this gear, with yours using yours, any day of the week.
In fact, I've got a 33MHz Mac Quadra around here, from before I went back to college, with Netscape, Photoshop, and MacHTTP web server, which could do all the same stuff you describe. Not as quickly, and with a little more work, but I could do it.
I'd be offended by the adolescent crack about being "from a different time thats gone past its usefullness", except for the fact that I'm old enough to know that it's wrong, and to know that someday you'll be hearing it yourself, from another generation of snot-nosed twerps... who'll be just as short on perspective.
"Chugging"? Pull out that noisy hard drive and put a Coyote Linux floppy in /dev/fdo. The CPU has a fanless heat sink, and there's no 5400rpm top spinning in the case, so after a minute of noisy drive seeks during boot, it's quiet as a mouse and maintenance free. If I had decent air conditioning in my house, I'd even consider snipping the wires to the power supply fan, and it'd be completely noiseless.
I not only have a 486 routing my packets (and blocking the incoming packets I don't want), but also another one running print jobs for me, and another serving up web pages. That last one's running Windows 3.1 as a kind of "look how we used to do this stuff, kids" project, so it's not exactly /.-proof. At least not compared to the floppy-based 386sx Linux server sitting next to it. Kids these days are so spoiled by their built-in floating-point units and other fancy-schmancy 486-type tricks.
I know a couple people who work in commercial radio, and from what they tell me, except at a few of the tiniest stations that Clear Channel, Citadel, etc. haven't bought yet, DJs have no power to choose songs. The music they play is determined by the station's central computer and played from their "current rotation" database, or (at the places without the latest equipment) from playlist-specific CDs supplied by their programming service. Even if the overnight DJ thinks that track #7 on the new CD by Pretentious Nonsequitur (and not the "hit single" of track #1) is the greatest tune since "I Got a Gal in Kalamazoo", he may be literally unable play it.
Not unless they have a lot of money to spend.
(2) Radio stations can still be selective about what they're going to play.
And they're going to select the stuff that they're paid to select.
What I don't understand is why anyone (other than a recording artist or a record-publishing executive) even gives a damn about Billboard's charts. Think about it: why should anyone care?
Far more likely they'd just gravitate to an entirely pay-for-play model. Especially when the people paying the station's bills (the purveyors of the aforementioned mass-market crap) start to complain about the free airtime the station is giving to their competitors.
The reason the laws apply to radio like this is because (at least in principle), the airwaves are a public resource, so the folks given the licence to use them have to use them within limits that aren't imposed on, say, newspaper publishers. "OK, you can use the 95.7MHz range in this area to run commercial annoucements for your own profit, but you have to also provide a free service to the community, such as playing music, reporting the news, or airing the opinions of loud-mouthed morons." Things have strayed a bit from that, but that's the idea behind it.
I still listen to radio. For the past decade and a half, my tuner has alternated between a nearby NPR/PRI afilliate and our local community radio station. The latter features music selected by volunteer programmers from an eclectic library of folk, blues, jazz, rock, and world beat; no commercials (just brief "day sponsor" announcements read a dozen times over the course of the day, and a semi-annual pledge drive); and a rule against repeating any track that's been played in the last few days. I'm pretty out of touch with what's being pushed on commercial radio these days (I have no idea who this Avril person mentioned in the article is), but I don't miss it one bit.
Yeah, it's kinda silly, but it's not a "PC schools" thing, so climb down off your reactionary horse. Calling early teens "young adults" is good old-fashioned commercial marketingspeak, intended to appeal to kids who think of themselves as too grown-up for "children's books". It's become standard lingo in the book trade and libraries, referring to a category of books that are dominated by fun-but-enriching stories about misfit adolescents learning valuable lessons about life and growing up (e.g. the Harry Potter books).
Sweet Jesus, I hope they were able to resist the allure of the Apple 3, and stuck with their Apple 2 until the Mac came out.
As a rule of thumb, every good-looking Mac can run the current OS X.
That includes every iMac, every iBook, and their contemporary Power* counterparts. The old G3 models run it rather well, considering their CPU speed, and you might want to consider a RAM upgrade. The earlier releases of OS X are supported on the old beige G3's and black PowerBooks, and even unsupported-by-Apple earlier models (the 7xxx, 8xxx, 9xxx series) can run it with a little tweaking of the install process using XPostFacto . I'm running Panther on one of the beige All-In-One G3's (if you've never seen one, imagine an angry Mac Classic after an overdose of gamma radiation), and my only complaint is that the internal floppy drive doesn't work (because Apple decided in '98 that floppies were evil).
This registration for a guy in Richardson TX is legitimate. After all, Iraq did recently "join" the Imperial Republic of Texas.
And a private corporation would be better than this... how? It's not as if businessmen are somehow purer than politicians. Would you like the internet in the hand of Diebold or the MPAA or Microsoft? There's plenty of motivation for censorship, political manipulation, etc. that way too, plus the anti-competitive profit motive as well. And since you're not one of the plutocrats that owns the company, they wouldn't even have to pretend to listen to your complaints.
You got the link right, but misspelled the word: it's ephebophilia. Although the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, there is some difference between those attracted to pre-pubescents (pedophiles) and those attracted to adolescents (ephebophiles). For example, most of us have been attracted to teenagers at some point in our lives, which makes an attraction to them during adulthood fairly "normal" (for what that's worth).
Dude, the "*#&!" crap in his interview wasn't about self-censoring. It was humor. Look into it.
I like this guy already.
I started warming to him at that point. He finally had me when he alluded to the fact that he'd written the screenplay for Chicken Run. Based on how well that film turned out (What?! You haven't seen it yet? Rent it now!), my answer to the above question would be that he the h*#&! is an excellent choice to adapt this treasured piece of literature.